Judgment M. Venugopal, J. 1. The First Respondent / Applicant as petitioner preferred Writ Petition in W.P. No. 8085 of 2005, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 33 of 2009, praying for issuance of an order to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in No. 235-52/05-O&M/44 dated 28.01.2005 of the Second Respondent and to quash the order passed therein. Further, he has also sought for issuance of direction to the Respondents / Department (Petitioners in the present W.P.) to drop the punishment imposed against him in the original order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the Third Respondent and consequently restore all the service benefits including monetary benefits to him by issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Background facts in T.A. No. 33 of 2009: 2. The Applicant was in the habit of bringing cash from General Manager's office every month to Sub Divisional Engineer's office for disbursement of salary to the staff working under Sub Divisional Engineer. He several times asked the Writ Petitioners / Respondents (Department) to provide security and vehicle for bringing the cash, but they have not heeded to his request and on 31.5.2001, while the Applicant was taking the Government money amounting to Rs.4,61,201/-for disbursement of salary to the staff of the Sub Divisional Engineer, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai, he was robbed by a stranger. Therefore, he was forced to project a complaint against the said robbery in the Teynampet Police Station on the same day. 3. It is not in dispute that the Writ Petitioners / Respondents (Department) initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In the course of inquiry, the First Respondent / Applicant took a stand with regard to security not provided to him at the time of carrying the cash. The Inquiry Officer completed his inquiry after absorbing all formalities and submitted his report. Consequent to the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Second Petitioner inflicted the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years and also recovery of money lost amounting to a sum of Rs.4,61,201/-. 4. The Inquiry Officer completed his inquiry after absorbing all formalities and submitted his report. Consequent to the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Second Petitioner inflicted the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years and also recovery of money lost amounting to a sum of Rs.4,61,201/-. 4. The First Respondent / Applicant being aggrieved against the said order of punishment imposed by the Competent Authority, projected an appeal before the Appellate Authority and on appeal, the Appellate Authority, after going into the matter in threadbare, reduced the punishment awarded to him to that of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years and recovery of Rs.4,61,201/-. 5. Yet, not satisfied with the said decision of the Appellate Authority, the First Respondent / Applicant made a further endeavour of projecting a Revision, which is pending. While that being the factual position, he also filed W.P. No. 29171 of 2004 before this Court and this Court, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, gave a direction to the Writ Petitioners / Department to dispose of the Review Petition filed by him. The Review Petition was accordingly disposed of whereby the order of the Appellate Authority was confirmed. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners / Department submits that the First Respondent / Applicant was negligent in not carrying the Government money properly and in fact, according to the Department, he was provided with security and vehicle for carrying the Government money but he refused to avail the same. That apart, he used to travel by Auto Ricksha along with another employee in the Department for bringing the money from Treasury. However, on the day of incident of robbery, the First Respondent / Applicant avoided the vehicle and also not took with him the another employee of the Department. But, for reasons known to him, the First Respondent / Applicant has chosen to travel in his Scooter and also taken a stranger in the Scooter to travel along with him. Also, while lodging a complaint with the Police, he has not whispered anything about the stranger being taken along with him in the Scooter. As such, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners / Department vehemently submits that the First Respondent / Applicant has been totally callous and negligent in carrying the cash in issue. Also, while lodging a complaint with the Police, he has not whispered anything about the stranger being taken along with him in the Scooter. As such, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners / Department vehemently submits that the First Respondent / Applicant has been totally callous and negligent in carrying the cash in issue. But the Petitioners / Department has taken a lenient and liberal view and awarded the minor penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 7. On 31.5.2001, on the day of incident, it is not in dispute that the First Respondent / Applicant travelled in a Scooter carrying Government money along with a stranger when the robbery had taken place. The very fact that he has not gone in a vehicle provided by the Department and also taken a stranger in a Scooter along with him, would clinchingly point out that he has not been diligent enough while discharging his duty in carrying the cash. Per contra, the conduct of not travelling in a vehicle of the Government at the time of carrying the money and also not taking any Government employee of the same Department, raises simmering suspicion or doubt on the conduct of the First Respondent/Applicant. 8. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent / Applicant submits that while he was working as Telephone Supervisor, SDE (EI), Chennai - 8, he was directed by the Sub Divisional Engineer to collect cash for salary disbursement for the staff of Sub Divisional Engineer (Electrical Section), Chennai, from General Manager's Office and for about three years, this practice was going on and further, the Applicant would proceed to General Manager's office, collect the cash and come back to Sub Divisional Engineer's office in an auto-rickshaw or by two-wheeler. During these trips, the Applicant was neither provided with a vehicle nor security guard and absolutely, no security was provided to the Applicant nor to the cash and only in this fashion, the Applicant was forced to carry the money despite several requests made by him to provide adequate security for him at the time of carrying the money. 9. During these trips, the Applicant was neither provided with a vehicle nor security guard and absolutely, no security was provided to the Applicant nor to the cash and only in this fashion, the Applicant was forced to carry the money despite several requests made by him to provide adequate security for him at the time of carrying the money. 9. Repelling the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent / Applicant, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners / Department submits that on 31.5.2001, the day of incident, the official, who used to accompany the Applicant every month, was readily available at the office of the General Manager, Telecom, Eldams Road, Chennai. But the Applicant, instead of taking him along in an auto, took a stranger with him in his two wheeler and collected the cash from the office of General Manager, Telecom, Eldams Road, Chennai. The Applicant, as a matter of fact, had not utilized the service of the official, who was readily available to accompany him as was done on earlier occasions. Therefore, the conduct of the Applicant was indeed, suspect when he chose to take a stranger with him and further, he also opted to travel in a two wheeler instead of an auto rickshaw as was done on earlier occasions. 10. On going through the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29.3.2010, we point out that the Second Respondent / Tribunal had categorically opined that the Petitioners / Department are also equally negligent because they failed to obtain Fidelity Bond from the First Respondent / Applicant for handling cash and also allowed him to carry the Government money in his own way. 11. Viewed in that perspective, the Tribunal came to the irresistible conclusion that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the Petitioners / Department to stop further recovery from the salary of the First Respondent / Applicant from the month of April 2010. Also it ordered that the amount already recovered by the Department need not be refunded to the First Respondent / Applicant and modified punishment dated 28.01.2005 imposed by the Authority concerned. 12. It passes beyond one's apprehension how a person carrying such a huge amount of Rs.4,61,201/-, travels in a Scooter and taking a stranger along with him. Also it ordered that the amount already recovered by the Department need not be refunded to the First Respondent / Applicant and modified punishment dated 28.01.2005 imposed by the Authority concerned. 12. It passes beyond one's apprehension how a person carrying such a huge amount of Rs.4,61,201/-, travels in a Scooter and taking a stranger along with him. The reason assigned by the First Respondent / Applicant that he was not provided with the vehicle or security is not a convincing and acceptable one. To say the least, the action of the First Respondent / Applicant was not that of a reasonable and prudent person. Per contra, his conduct is highly reprehensible and does not behove well of a dedicated and devoted departmental employee. 13. Whenever a Court or Tribunal deals with a matter under judicial review, normally, it is not for the Court / Tribunal to substitute the view taken by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities. It is true that the punishment to be inflicted to an offender should suit the offence committed by him. Of course, the punishment to be awarded should not be in a whimsical or arbitrary fashion. But in the instant case on hand, in view of the categorical stand taken by the Petitioners / Department in paragraph 4 of the counter wherein they have clearly stated that on date of incident on 31.05.2001, the official, who used to accompany him every month was readily available at the office of GM, Telecom, Eldams Road, Chennai, it is clear that the Applicant, instead of taking him along in an auto, took a stranger with him in his two wheeler with the cash collected from the office of GM, Telecom, Eldams Road, Chennai. Therefore, the counter averments made by the Department in paragraph 4 to W.P. No. 8085 of 2005 clearly nails / negates the case projected by the First Respondent / Applicant. Unfortunately, the Tribunal had not taken into account this vital fact and misdirected itself in imposing the reduced punishment by issuing directions to the Petitioners / Department to stop further recovery from the salary of the Applicant from the month of April 2010 and also ordered that the amount already recovered by the Department need not be refunded to the Applicant, which, in our considered view, are not sound and valid and based on well established principles of law. As such, we are perforced to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 33 of 2009 dated 29.3.2010 (as stated supra) by setting aside the same and allow the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioners / Department. Per contra, we restore the order of punishment imposed by the First Writ Petitioner dated 13.8.2001 and confirmed by the Second Writ Petitioner / Reviewing Authority as per proceedings in No. 235-52/05-O&M/44 dated 28.01.2005. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.